Brian Huck

Where did you get this info? MINIs aren't available with a V6. Even the John Cooper Works editions use the turocharged 4-cyl.

I've been hearing about GM for the last month or so a LOT on NPR. Today they mentioned that GM's share price is down to 1943 - as in WWII - levels. Scary. Part of me thinks, "Well, they've had it coming", but really, NOone truly wants GM to fail. Cars and history aside, it would be just an enormous loss in terms of jobs and the economy.

Oh, thanks for the welcome, Mike. My LHS holds all of the Model Cars and Scale Autos for me when they come out, so I'm set there. And several people here will recognize me form another forum that I've been on and off of for the last 8 years or so. I've been at this for a LONG time, so I know all about the issue of inaccuracies in kits. Just for disclosure, I've got one of the new Nova kits, and I'm not building anything right now. All of my hobby stuff (with the exception of a handful of kits I've bought recently) is currently in storage - long story. Regardless, whether or not a person has built a kit really has no bearing on whether they can assess its accuracy.

As far as the taillights go, a thought I had about a "quick fix" would be just to file/sand the rear edges of the body back to a more correct angle, so that the body color would "cheat" the angle to the eye. Basically, just file the rear edges so that it's a straight line from the bottom of the body to the corner where the trunk lid is, eliminating the little "snags" next to the taillights. Actually correcting the angle of the lights and panel seems like it would be a more involved process that would require a spare bumper/taillight piece. Regarding the front end, I've seen some mention of people thinking the front end of the new Revell Nova is too V-ed or slants too far forward. I personally don't see that. I'm more inclined to agree with Bob that the AMT '71's front end is a little "flat".

This is more the point I was trying to make.

Good points. I certainly wasn't defending the tone of the letter, and I wouldn't expect Gregg to toss his contributors "under the bus".

I'll second (or fourth) that! Nice job. The model looks very realistic, and the handful of upgrades/replcements to some of the kit pieces really make a difference.

I think the reply to Alan Bohach's letter regarding the review(s) of the Revell '69 Nova was unnecessarily dismissive. I agree that his letter is a bit extreme itself, but he DOES have a point. While the body in the new kit is relly nice with regard to proportions and the overall appearance, to say that Revell "nailed it" implies that they got all the details right as well, and they didn't. Some of these incorrect details are more minor than others and some will be easier to fix than others, but the fact remains that they are incorrect, and they detract (perhaps on a subjective level) from the kit. That said, I DO think the new kit is pretty outstanding overall, and a BIG improvement over the long-in-the-tooth AMT '71. I look forward to seeing what other versions of the Nova Revell issues. I just think that innacuracies of the type that used to be pointed out in kit reviews are nowadays being glossed over or ignored completely in newer reviews, and a person shouldn't be brushed off for pointing that out, or for pointing out said inaccuracies. I know I missed what was surely a LOT of internet discussion of this kit when it first came out, but I just picked up the magazine the other day and thought I'd comment on the letter.